RIVER LEE AREA DRAFT MOORING MANAGEMENT · PDF fileRIVER LEE AREA DRAFT MOORING MANAGEMENT...
Transcript of RIVER LEE AREA DRAFT MOORING MANAGEMENT · PDF fileRIVER LEE AREA DRAFT MOORING MANAGEMENT...
1
RIVER LEE AREA DRAFT MOORING MANAGEMENT PLAN
PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY
0.1 This document is an independent summary of the public consultation conducted in relation
to the River Lee Area Draft Mooring Management Plan. It does not seek to pass judgment on the fitness or
otherwise of the proposals, or on the value of specific viewpoints expressed by respondents. It is simply
intended to serve as a summary without prejudice of the themes and reactions resulting from the public
consultation.
0.3 The author has taken care to ensure that the contents of this summary are a fair
representation of the body of responses as a whole. Where percentages are quoted these refer to the
proportion of total responses that, in the author‟s opinion, expressed the viewpoint in question.
0.4 In total 435 responses were received as a result of the consultation, all of which are
available for public scrutiny except in cases where the respondent explicitly requested otherwise. All
responses have been redacted by British Waterways in accordance with the Data Protection Act so as to
remove each respondent‟s personal information.
1. Interest Profile of Respondents
1.1 This chart indicates submissions from respondents who self-identified as being from certain
interest groups. Please note that it was possible to select more than one interest group.
1.2 There was some significant overlap in these interest groups. For example, 14% of the
Continuous Cruisers also described themselves as Local Residents and almost a third of Cyclists described
themselves as boaters of some description.
1.3 The proposals found most favour amongst boaters with long term moorings in the plan area,
with 42% in support, and in general this group was the most sympathetic to the issues raised by British
Waterways in the proposals. After this the most support was in the Councillors and Local Authority category
(29%) and Anglers (20%), followed by Rower (18%) and Business (15%). In all five of these categories,
however, the percentage of respondents opposed to the proposals was greater than those in favour.
Total respondents: 435 Total of these bars: 595 reflecting multiple interests
2
1.4 There was overwhelming opposition to the proposals amongst Continuous Cruisers (93%),
Cyclists (96%), Canoeists (100%), Local Residents (89%), Residential Boaters (86%) and Visitors to Lee
Valley Park (97%). There were no respondents in the Cyclist, Canoeist or Visitor to Lee Valley Park
categories that expressed support for the proposals.
1.5 A full breakdown of the common viewpoints, with the percentages of each interest group that
expressed each view, can be found in Appendix C.
1.6 Sixty-four of the responses consisted of a questionnaire that had been distributed by a boat
club. In general the answers to the questionnaire indicated a broadly supportive opinion of the proposals, or
at least a consensus that there are real problems that need to be addressed. For example, 73% said the
current level of towpath mooring negatively effected their enjoyment of the waterways and 89% supported
the introduction of a daily fee of around £20.00 for boats that overstay. However, slightly less than half these
respondents thought that British Waterways would be able to effectively enforce the mooring proposals and
77% said they believed that the problems could be resolved through strict enforcement of the existing “14-
day rule”. A full breakdown of the survey results is included in Appendix D.
2. Reactions to Proposals
2.1 The reaction to the proposals was largely negative (74%); with many passionate responses
describing the distress that the proposals had caused and the extreme disruption to the respondents‟ lives
that would result from their implementation.
2.2 Some respondents expressed dissatisfaction with how the proposal/consultation process
had been handled by British Waterways (9%), while others disputed the assumption that the plan area is
congested (28%) or said that a high density of boats was a benefit rather than a problem (8%).
2.3 Other respondents expressed concern that the proposals were motivated by a desire to
clean up the waterways and generate extra revenue due to the London 2012 Olympics (7%) or that they
amounted to a gentrification of the waterways (4%).
2.4 A minority of respondents were in favour of the proposals (14%), or accepted that there was
a general overcrowding problem in the plan area (3%), or that there were problems regarding abuses of
Continuous Cruiser licences (11%). In some cases there was a feeling that the proposals do not go far
enough, with particular mention being made that Continuous Cruisers should be required to navigate an area
of the network much larger than that covered by the plan area (13%).
2.5 In some cases comments were made about the problem of untidy boats or towpaths (4%) or
that prime mooring sites or even lock lay-bys were often taken up by boats that seem to rarely move (7%).
3. Key Themes
3.1 Community and Safety
3.1.1 A major theme of the consultation was the high regard in which local residents and other
users of the waterways hold the boating community. Frequent mention was made of the colour, vibrancy and
friendliness of the community (38%) and how this makes the canal a more attractive place (23%) and an
attraction to London‟s visitors (6%). Comments were made in praise of the comparatively eco-friendly and
low-impact lifestyle of living on the waterways and how this should be encouraged (12%).
3.1.2 A large number of respondents commented on the benefits brought by a high density of
people and boats along the towpath, with a corresponding improvement in crime rates and feelings of safety,
especially for lone women at night (40%).
3
3.1.3 In many cases the above comments were accompanied by a view, either stated or clearly
implied, that the proposals would damage the boating community within the plan area and jeopardise an
entire way of life (35%). Some respondents made reference to the history of boating on London‟s waterways,
including cruising liveaboard boaters, and how they felt this tradition would be eroded by the proposals (6%).
3.2 Working and Living
3.2.1 A common theme of the consultation was the view that the levels of boat movement required
by the proposals would make it impractical or impossible for people to continue to live their lives as they are
now. Many of the respondents commented on the difficulties that would arise in retaining their jobs or
keeping their children in school if they adhered to the rules outlined in the proposals (24%). It was also
mentioned that a key attraction to living on the waterways was the comparatively slow pace of life and that
the requirement to move more frequently would reduce this attraction (1%).
3.2.2 Comments were made on the difficulty of affording a permanent mooring (4%) and some
respondents also pointed out that the proposals would effectively force people off the waterways and place
them in hardship due to the high rents within London (5%). Related to this, concerns were also raised about
the potential impact the proposals may have on demand for social housing and social services in the London
boroughs within the plan area (5%).
3.2.3 A common viewpoint was that there is a lack of moorings within the plan area. Many
respondents felt that a better supply of mooring points would help alleviate some of the problems described
in the proposals (20%). This includes both affordable permanent moorings and additional temporary mooring
points for visitors. In some cases it was pointed out that further dredging of the waterways is required in
order to facilitate the mooring of boats in more locations within the plan area.
3.2.4 A few concerns were raised about the potential impact the proposals could have on the
value of boats, with some respondents voicing fears that the investment they made in their boats could be
significantly eroded if the proposals came into force (2%).
3.3 Neighbourhoods and Waterway Zoning
3.3.1 There was a feeling amongst a minority of respondents that the proposal to introduce 7-day
mooring zones across a significant part of the plan area was too restrictive or covered too wide an area
(11%). It was mentioned that the common practice of „weekending‟ a boat would be made highly impractical
if the proposals were to be implemented.
3.3.2 Some respondents took issue with the neighbourhood system featured in the proposal,
feeling that the neighbourhoods in question were too large and navigating between them on a regular basis
would be too onerous a task (9%). Others commented that they considered some of the proposed
neighbourhoods to be unsafe for mooring (2%). A small number of responses bemoaned the suggestion that
boaters be forbade from backtracking to neighbourhoods they had previously visited (2%).
3.3.3 Comments were made concerning the potential increase in congestion on the waterways
due to the increased volume of boats moving within the plan area (10%).
3.4 Environment and Infrastructure
3.4.1 There was a feeling amongst respondents that the increase in boat movement that would
result from the proposals represents a potential threat to the natural waterways environment (18%).
Concerns included the impact on the banks from increased erosion, lack of water and the effect on wildlife
from diesel pollution of the waterways.
3.4.2 In addition to this fears were expressed about the increased wear and tear on the waterways
infrastructure, for example locks, that would result from increased boat movement (13%). Respondents
4
commented that the need for more frequent maintenance of locks would be an inconvenience to boaters and
increase the costs to British Waterways.
3.4.3 There were also comments about the need for more, or better-maintained, facilities within
the plan area (8%). Some respondents felt that, since people tend to select mooring locations partly on the
basis of access to facilities such as water and sanitation, a greater frequency of such facilities along the
waterway would help relieve congestion around the currently popular sites.
3.4.4 A few respondents also made reference to the potential danger to other waterways users,
such as rowers and canoeists, that may arise from more boat movement (3%).
3.5 Authority and Legality
3.5.1 In some cases doubts were raised about whether British Waterways possesses the legal
authority to implement the proposals (6%), or that the proposals seemed unduly difficult or expensive to
effectively enforce (15%). Concerns were raised by a minority of respondents that the proposals were in their
view discriminatory and in breach of human rights legislation (11%). Concerns were also raised that the
proposals were inadequately supported by data (10%) or that the level of the proposed charges was too high
(8%).
4. Responses from Statutory Bodies
4.1 There were a few responses to the consultation from statutory bodies that have a stake in
the waterways or stand to be affected by the proposals in some way. Italicised text below is quoted directly
from the respective responses.
4.2 Lee Valley Park Authority
4.2.1 The Lee Valley Park Authority said it continues to be concerned about the physical state of
boats on some of the long term moorings. Furthermore they expressed the view that such boats had an
„adverse impact on the amenities of the Park and affect visitor perceptions‟.
4.2.2 The Authority also said that it was „aware of problems on the Navigation adjacent to the
Authority‟s Springfield marina‟ and that there is an issue with owners of residential boats in the area dumping
their rubbish at the marina.
4.2.3 The response questioned whether British Waterways had the resources to effectively police
the rules outlined in the proposals and whether the suggested mooring charges were sufficient to cover the
relevant administration and enforcement costs.
4.2.4 Furthermore, the Authority voiced its concern that „up to 150 families may be living on their
boats on these waterways without the benefit of planning permission‟. It suggested that consultation with
local housing authorities be necessary to help address this sensitive issue.
4.2.5 Lastly, the Authority expressed its opposition to the development of permanent moorings,
which it said ran „contrary to the statutory purpose of the Regional Park which is as a leisure destination.‟
4.3 London Borough of Haringey
4.3.1 In its response to the consultation the London Borough of Haringey said that, while it
understands the need for better management of the waterways, it felt that „the consultation document does
not have sufficient background information for a robust decision-making process.‟ Specifically it said that it
would like to see survey evidence to indicate which areas particularly suffered from an over-concentration of
boats.
5
4.3.2 The response said that the proposals „rightly emphasise‟ that a high concentration of
residential moorings will have a negative impact on those who use the waterways for leisure. The Borough
went on to say, however, that it believe the current form of the proposals do not give reassurance that the
issue of residential moorings is being „adequately addressed in a way that is sustainable and that meets the
needs of all users of the Navigation.‟
4.4 Hackney Council Planning Service
4.4.1 Hackney Council Planning Service voiced its belief in the importance of achieving a balance
of uses on the waterways. It said that British Waterways should “think about the regenerative benefit of boat
dwellers, who bring a vitality and vibrancy to waterways, and improve the security and surveillance of
stretches of water that mean those waterways are used when otherwise they may not.”
4.4.2 The Planning Service went on to say that it believed the proposals could have a negative
impact on „settled communities of boat dwellers‟ and urged British Waterways to conduct an equalities
impact assessment and consult with Council officers to ensure an effective management plan is developed.
4.5 Transport Committee of the London Assembly
4.5.1 As part of the consultation, the following letter was received from Caroline Pidgeon, Chair of
the Transport Committee for the London Assembly.
4.5.2 I wish to express my concern about aspects of your proposals within your Boat Licence
Changes consultation which affects areas such as Regent's Canal, Kensal Green and Lea Valley in London.
I am concerned that your proposed new rules will make it very difficult for many of the boating
community to continue to live on the water. Your proposals may force many people to give up their boat
homes, as it will be very difficult to sustain a life in London, especially for boaters who have children in local
schools. Many families would either have to continually move their families around or give up living on the
water as they have done for many years.
Having a sense of community in these areas, such as on the Regent's Canal, is very important.
Stable communities living on the waterways helps to reduce anti-social behaviour, making tow paths and
surrounding areas far safer for everyone to use and enjoy.
I hope that you will reconsider your proposals and ensure that our boating communities are
supported.
Yours sincerely,
Caroline Pidgeon AM
5. Alternative Solutions
5.1 Many respondents felt that British Waterways should more rigorously enforce the existing
guidelines regarding continuous cruising, specifically the ‟14-day rule‟, rather than introduce new measures
(37%). It was often expressed that doing so would go a long way to alleviate the problems described in the
proposal document.
5.2 In other cases it was pointed out that one method of controlling congestion that British
Waterways has at its disposal is the issuing of licenses. Some respondents felt that limiting the number of
licenses, perhaps by introducing a waiting list, would help keep a lid on the rising trend of boat numbers that
is described in the proposals (14%).
5.3 Comments were made by some that they felt new boat owners were not sufficiently provided
with information, or made aware of the guidelines as they currently exist, and that this could be contributing
to problems on the waterways. They felt that British Waterways and/or boat dealers could do more in this
regard (3%).
6
5.4 Some respondents expressed the view that they would like to see British Waterways adopt a
more collaborative approach to dealing with the issues described in the proposals and that, by working with
the community more closely, a set of mutually agreed solutions could be arrived at (9%). In some of these
cases it was suggested that a voluntary code of practice for boaters within the plan area, drawn up as part of
a dialogue between British Waterways and the boaters, would work to improve the situation.
5.5 Responses from User Groups
5.5.1 The following is a selection of the responses received from user groups. All responses were
given due consideration; those highlighted here were chosen because they represent a range of viewpoints
and/or were produced as a result of separate consultations with membership or the public. They also
included some specific proposals for alternative solutions to the issues outlined in the proposals. Italicised
text below is quoted directly from the respective responses.
5.6 London Boaters
5.6.1 The response from London Boaters identified several suggestions for how the proposals
could be adapted or improved.
5.6.2 Communication – “Most of the issues raised by other stakeholder groups so far have been
minor and easily addressed through better and more regular communication both between user groups and
boaters and between boaters ourselves.” “We will develop a London Boaters Code to ensure both locally
resident and visiting boaters are aware of such local agreements.”
5.6.3 Enforcement – “Enforcement should be based on the current rules and should not seek to
extend the existing legislation through regulation.”
5.6.4 Mediation– “Where issues are identified which are evidenced and which are not able to be
immediately resolved, British Waterways should seek to ensure that they are independently and respectfully
mediated or facilitated until agreement is reached. The provision of sufficient visitor moorings or the provision
of alternative moorings during the Olympics are issues that might fall into this category.”
5.6.5 Partnership – “London Boaters are committed to the maintenance of a working accessible
waterway that is environmentally sustainable and which meets our needs and the needs of others who live
on and alongside it. The canals and waterways provide a bond between us, the other users of the
waterways, the local communities and British Waterways. We would like to explore the possibilities of
working more closely to ensure provision of new facilities and new moorings in order to address some of the
perceived issues of congestion raised in the proposals.”
5.7 Upper Lee & Stort Boaters Association
5.7.1 The ULSBA accepted the need for British Waterways to generate revenue, but stressed this
should come from a combination of sources. It suggested that, for example, revenue is currently lost due to
the number of unlicenced boats and that prompt and appropriate enforcement action was required. In
addressing the issue of boats not moving, the ULSBA went on to say that the “law allows for such boats to
be refused a licence”, adding that British Waterways should also take legal action against boatyards that are
known to introduce unlicensed boats to the waterways.
5.7.2 The response also raised the issue of winter moorings, stating that “continuous cruisers
would be prepared to pay for a winter mooring for the months of November to April if these were available, in
a location of their choice at a reasonable price.”
5.7.3 The ULSBA also stated that it “supports the introduction of time-limited visitor moorings and
would encourage other boaters to moor away from these at busy times and to moor on the towpath
whenever possible, particularly at weekends, bank holidays and during the summer season.”
7
5.7.4 On the issue of the availability of residential moorings, the ULSBA expressed its belief that
many continuous cruisers would be keen to pay for permanent moorings if some could be made available at
a reasonable price. Regarding towpath mooring, it stated that congestion could be relieved by better
maintenance of the rivers that “would increase the amount of usable space for mooring and allow boats
mooring on the towpath to spread out”. It added that better availability of facilities along the waterway would
have a similar effect.
5.7.5 The possibility of introducing a „Boater‟s Code‟ was also raised by ULSBA, and the response
included a preliminary draft of what such a code contain. It also stated that “a website is being constructed
which will be available to local groups to post details of forthcoming events that may require continuous
cruisers to avoid the area and plan their movements accordingly. The groups we have spoken to are
enthusiastic about these ideas and are confident that we can work together to achieve this in this area.”
5.8 National Association of Boat Owners
5.8.1 The National Association of Boat Owners welcomed the initiatives for local boaters to
discuss appropriate codes of conduct and encouraged British Waterways “to embrace this concept and
generate examples of bona fide navigation.”
5.8.2 The response expressed support for the morestringent enforcement of the 14-day rule and
on 24/48 moorings while further study and consultation are carried out regarding a mooring plan for the Lee
and Stort. It also suggested a survey of facilities in the plan area “to map locations of water points, sanitary
stations, refuse points, car parking areas, together with a general 'condition' survey of the recognised visitor‟s
moorings.” It furthermore raised the possibility of boaters undertaking some of the work to improve provision
of facilities, noting that this approach has been successful in other parts of the waterways network.
5.8.3 NABO also stated that it would like to see additional visitor moorings at prime locations.
5.9 National Bargee Travellers Association
5.9.1 In its response to the consultation, the National Bargee Travellers Association expressed
grave concerns regarding the impact the proposals would have on the human rights of its members. It
expressed the opinion that “there is no reason why the fair and equitable and most of all lawful management
of the River Lee cannot be achieved thorough the proper deployment of existing powers.”
5.9.2 The NBTA also said that it believes more effort directed towards “effective placement of off-
line residential moorings” would be beneficial. It also stated its opinion that British Waterways should
“recognise that itinerant live-aboards engage in a different lifestyle but that “different” does not mean
“unacceptable” and that in fact many positive outcomes flow from the philosophy of live-aboard itinerancy.”
5.10 Inland Waterways Association
5.10.1 The Inland Waterways Association expressed concern that British Waterways considered it
acceptable for a boater to hold a Continuous Cruisers License with a Rivers-Only Licence.
5.10.2 On the issue of facilities it expressed that view that “extra facilities should not be provided
just because boats do not wish to move”, adding that consideration ought to be given to providing water and
sanitation away from car parking facilities in order to be “inconvenient to those trying to „squat‟ and
commute.”
5.10.3 Expanding on the subject of car parking, the IWA expressed the view that British Waterways
should work with local authorities to increase parking restrictions and tow away or clamp cars that were
parked for long periods next to high-use areas of the waterways.
8
5.10.4 Regarding the marking of visitor moorings, the IWA felt that the relevant time limits should
be made more explicit in order to “avoid misinterpretation (deliberate or otherwise).” It also said that “more
action needs to be done to prevent moorers taking over the towpath and declaring ʻownershipʼ of a particular
section of waterspace.”
5.10.5 The IWA accepted that there was a need for a greater number of accessible moorings away
from the recognised visitor moorings, suggesting that better dredging close to the towpath would free up
large sections of towpath for use. It also pointed out that the new marina at Roydon “only has about 15 boats
moored at present but it has a capacity of 300 boats” and that perhaps more could be done to make use of
residential mooring spaces.
5.11 Residential Boat Owners Association
5.11.1 The response from the RBOA begins by indicating that perhaps the issues surrounding the
supply of moorings is one of cost more than availability and that if British Waterways adopted a more flexible
pricing policy the situation could be somewhat alleviated.
5.11.2 Regarding debris left by boaters on the towpath, the response points out that „spill-over is
against BW existing regulations and could legitimately be removed as „litter‟ and/or „Health & Safety risk‟.
However, later in the response the RBOA questions the ability of British Waterways to effectively police the
regulations outlined in the proposals given its current and projected levels of staffing and funding.
5.11.3 The response articulates the opposition of the RBOA to the introduction of daily charges on
the grounds that those with adequate funds will decide to pay, and that the policy leaves British Waterways
open to accusations of being motivated by revenue rather than improving the experience of waterways
users.
5.11.4 The RBOA likewise take issue with the reference to the Olympics in the proposals, pointing
out that any decisions surrounding mooring policy during the Olympics is a short term issue that is not
relevant when formulating a long term mooring strategy. It sees the issues of neighbourhoods as particularly
troublesome and would like to see mooring limits applied on the basis of specific sites rather than zones.
5.11.5 The response also questions the legal grounds for British Waterways to implement the
proposals, especially in regard to how information about the regulations is to be communicated. The RBOA
says “enforcement without adequate and clear signage may be difficult in law. If challenged, BW would have
to prove that those charged had been notified of the applicable and specific terms and conditions beyond
reasonable doubt.”
6. Frequently Asked Questions
6.1 Several respondents requested clarification regarding exceptions to the rules outlined in the
proposal, particularly in instances where the waterway had became impassable or boats were inoperable
(2%). They argued or implied that it would be unreasonable for charges to be imposed if a boat was unable
to move a sufficient distance due to events such as broken locks, frozen waterways or engine breakdown.
7. The Way Forward
7.1 Taken as a whole, the body of responses to the consultation suggest several ways in which
the proposals to regulate mooring on the Lee and Stort can be taken forward.
7.2 There is a need for more rigorous studies and supporting data to underpin the proposals.
This would serve to more clearly identify specific areas that the proposals need to address, as well as help
create greater confidence among waterways users that a change to current mooring regulations is
necessary. Such studies may include surveys on the level of congestion within the plan area and the extent
9
to which existing guidelines around continuous cruising are being abused. Likewise it may be necessary
undertake further study to address the potential environmental and social impact of the proposals.
7.3 There may be a case for simply increasing the level of enforcement for what the majority of
waterways users understand to be the “14-day rule”. This was a common issue raised in the consultation,
however if British Waterways believe that such a strategy will not materially improve the situation then the
reasons for this may need to be communicated to waterways users alongside any future set of proposals.
7.4 It may be necessary to take into account the changing character of the waterways in
summer and winter, with thought given to whether enforcement measures that might be suited to the peak
season are still appropriate or cost-effective when applied throughout the year.
7.5 Many of the respondents and user groups expressed a desire to work with British
Waterways in a more collaborative manner, with the goal of drawing up an alternative set of proposals that
would be more mutually acceptable. It was mentioned in some responses that the boating community might
be amenable to a “boater‟s code” or the introduction of a modified „neighbourhood watch‟ system that could
educate and assist other boaters as well as help identify problem individuals.
7.6 The consultation contained many complaints about the state and range of facilities available
within the plan area, and that this inadequacy could in part be responsible for some of the problems outlined
by British Waterways in the proposals. There was a broad acceptance that funds for improvements are
limited, but perhaps any amended set of proposals could include comments on plans for future improvement
of facilities, or why substantial improvements are impractical or unaffordable. Much the same applies to the
issue of creating additional permanent moorings, available at an affordable price, within the plan area.
7.7 Another issue that was raised by the consultation is one of communication. British
Waterways may need to evaluate how information regarding future proposals or consultations are
disseminated to the waterways communities, with particular regard to advance notice and the challenges of
contacting people who may not always have immediate access to post/phone/internet. Additionally, once a
set of proposals has eventually been implemented there will need to be a coordinated way of publicising the
new regulations not only to existing waterways users, but to those who may purchase boats in future.
10
APPENDIX 1 LIST OF RESPONSE THEMES AND FREQUENCY OF MENTION
Responses Red = negative, blue = supportive
322 74% I am opposed to the proposals / The proposals seem unfair
175 40% Boaters make the towpath safer, particularly after dark
164 38% Boaters are a colourful and vibrant community
163 37% BW should just enforce the existing 14-day rule
151 35% The proposals risk damaging a vibrant community and a whole way of life
123 28% Over-crowding on the Lee/Stort navigation is not a problem / It is not difficult to find mooring spots
104 24% People cannot leave the area where they work or their children attend school, access to services such as healthcare will be more difficult
98 23% Boaters make the canals a more attractive place
88 20% There are not enough affordable moorings / I would like to see more affordable moorings
80 18% Concern over environmental impact of increased boat movement, e.g. canal bank erosion, water pollution
64 15% The proposals seem difficult/expensive to enforce effectively
60 14% A limit should be placed on the number of "River Only" or "Continuous Cruising" licenses
59 14% I support the proposals / The proposals seem fair
58 13% The proposals should go further / Continuous cruisiers should have to navigate a larger area of the network
58 13% Increased wear and tear to canal infrastructure will result from increased boat movement
54 12% Liveaboard boaters have a lower environmental impact/have a sometimes arduous life and this should be encouraged/respected
49 11% The proposals are discriminatory, threathen the human rights of continuous cruisers and/or are prejudiced against continuous cruisers
47 11% The proposal to introduce 7-day zones is too restrictive / The 7-day zones cover too wide an area / The 7-day zones make weekending virtually impossible
46 11% The abuse of the continuous cruiser system is a problem
42 10% Concern that increased boat movement will contribute to over-crowding of the waterway
42 10% The proposals do not adequately address the perceived problem / There is not enough data to back up BW's assertions in the proposal document
38 9% Unhappy at the way the consultation has been handled / There was not enough notice about the proposals / BW are trying to rush these changes through
38 9% Some of the proposed neighbourhoods are too large or take too long to navigate / There should be more neighbourhoods
37 9% BW need to take a more collaborative approach, working with the CC community and not alienating them
36 8% The high density of boats is a benefit, not a problem
36 8% The £20/£40 charge is too high/unfair, it is unclear how they were arrived at
33 8% Existing facilities (eg water) along the canal must be improved in order to offer more opportunities for mooring and/or to support a higher level of boat movement
32 7% Prime public mooring sites, or lock laybys, are often taken up by boats that do not move for long stretches of time
32 7% The proposals are motivated by a desire to clean up the canals / generate extra revenue from visiting canal users during the Olympics
26 6% The proposals risk eroding centuries of history and tradition
25 6% BW do not have the legal authority to impose fines/charges or implement these proposals
24 6% The canal community is an attraction to London's visitors
23 5% People cannot afford a house in London
21 5% The proposals will place additional pressure on social services and social housing in the area
19 4% There is a problem with the tidiness of the waterways / boaters' possessions on the towpath / dirty or abandoned boats
18 4% People cannot afford a permanent mooring
18 4% Permanent moorers pay for facilities to which continuous cruisers do not have access
18 4% The proposals amount to a gentrification of the waterways
14 3% The proposals will marginalise continuous cruisers
11
12 3% Overcrowding on the Lee/Stort navigation is a problem
12 3% Increased boat movement will make the canal more dangerous for other users
11 3% The existing guidelines are not adequately explained to new boat owners
10 2% The proposals will simply shift the problem to another area of the network
9 2% Some of the proposed neighbourhoods are unsafe for mooring
8 2% The proposals will restrict boaters' freedom of movement
8 2% I think it is important that there are adequate visitor moorings available for genuine visitors to the area
8 2% At times the canal is impassable or boats cannot move (e.g. broken locks, frozen canal, engine breakdown). What is the process for making exceptions to the rules outlined in the proposals?
7 2% The requirement for cruisers not to return to a neighbourhood they have just come from is unfair/impractical
7 2% Concerned about possible financial loss as the proposals could lead to a significant loss in value for their boat
6 1% Those who live on the waterways should be given priority over temporary users
6 1% A key attraction of the waterways is the slow pace of life, encouraging more boat movement will destroy this
5 1% The neighbourhood boundaries should be different
12
APPENDIX 2 QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPED BY LEE AND STORT CRUISING CLUB FOR THEIR
MEMBERS SHOWING TOTAL RESPONSES
Q1 What effect does the current level of towpath mooring have on your enjoyment of the waterway?
Good 5 8.1%
Bad 45 72.6%
None 8 12.9%
Other 4 6.5%
Total 62
Q2 Do you think that there is a need for change in the way that British Waterways manages long term towpath moorers?
Yes 59 96.7%
No 2 3.3%
Total 61
Q3 Do you think that the existing problems would be resolved if British Waterways strictly enforced the so called "14 Day Rule"?
Yes 48 77.4%
No 14 22.6%
Total 62
Q4 Do you think that towpath moorers should be charged a daily fee (ie £20,00 per day) for staying longer than the allowed period in one place?
Yes 56 88.9%
No 7 11.1%
Total 63
Q5 If you answered yes to Q4, do you think that British Waterways would be able to effectively enforce collection of these fees?
Yes 29 47.5%
No 32 52.5%
Total 61
Q6 If British Waterways carry out the proposed mooring plans, do you think that they could be policed effectively and enforced by BW?
Yes 26 42.6%
No 35 57.4%
Total 61
Q7 If these proposals were enforced, can you envisage that they may cause other problems (ie More use of locks, lack of water, more lock maintenance required)?
Yes 35 57.4%
No 26 42.6%
Total 61
Q8 Do you think that the Lee and Stort is too short a waterway to be used for "Continuous Cruising"?
Yes 53 86.9%
No 8 13.1%
Total 61
Q9 If you answered yes to Q8 do you think that BW should seek powers to restrict the number of "River Only" licences that are issued to Continuous Cruisers?
13
Yes 50 89.3%
No 6 10.7%
Total 56
Q10 Do you think that the current problems could be eased if BW strictly enforced the amount of time that you can moor at designated Visitor Moorings, popular mooring sites and lock landings?
Yes 57 95.0%
No 3 5.0%
Total 60
Q11 Do you think that BW should designate certain areas of towpath for use by Continuous Cruisers?
Yes 33 53.2%
No 29 46.8%
Total 62
Q13
Do you approve of the proposed reduction from 14 days to 7 days of the general right to moor on the towpath (other than specific visitor mooring restrictions) for the upper Lee and the entire Stort and the associated reduction in number of places (neighbourhoods) defined for the purposes of applying the limit to just 6 (from over 30)?
Yes 38 64.4%
No 21 35.6%
Total 59
14
APPENDIX 3: BRIEF FOR PREPARATION OF SUMMARY REPORT
The report was prepared by a temporary BW employee, recruited for this task only. We selected him for his
expertise in analysing, reviewing and writing technical material. He had no prior knowledge of, or interest in
waterway matters. The text below the brief we gave him at the end of May 2011.
Approximately 200 consultation responses were received during public consultation. The purpose of this
brief is to generate an independent digest and summary of the substance of all the responses. The resulting
independent report will be published online and, along with stakeholder input at the next stage, will inform
development of the final plan.
Our proposals and details of the consultation are published here.
Report
The report must be objective, free of any value judgements and include:
1. summary of the interest data requested in the response questionnaire (see below )
2. brief overviews of the responses to each of the questions listed in the response questionnaire, indicating
where there is any tendency for agreement/polarisation between interest groups
3. Concise descriptions of key themes emerging from the feedback (which may or may not have been
codable under item 2 above). It would be helpful if these were grouped under the following headings with
comments on the frequency with which particular themes were mentioned and by which interest group(s):
a. Reactions to our proposals
b. Alternative solutions
c. Frequently asked questions (i.e. things that people simply didn‟t understand/want us to explain)
Process for developing the report
We don‟t want to be particularly prescriptive, but experience shows use of mind maps very useful for initial
recording of themes – with sub themes branching off to create a single page view impression. Much of
our audience is inherently sceptical and un-trusting. We need to demonstrate the transparency and
objectivity of the review process.
Damian Kemp
24 May 2011